Wakilii

ICEA General Insurance Company Limited & Another v Ultimate Security (Civil Suit 328 of 2019)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 281 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of insurance indemnity paid under subrogation doctrine
Decision
Default judgment entered for plaintiffs; defendant ordered to pay indemnity amount, general damages, interest, and costs

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court held that an insurer who indemnifies its insured under an insurance policy is entitled to recover the amount paid from a third party whose employee caused the loss, applying the doctrine of subrogation. The court found the defendant security company vicariously liable for a burglary committed by its own security guard at the insured premises, despite a contractual limitation of liability clause, because the defendant fundamentally breached its contract by deploying only one guard instead of two as agreed. The insurer was awarded the full indemnity amount plus general damages and costs.

Outcome

Default judgment entered for plaintiffs; defendant ordered to pay indemnity amount, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

The 2nd plaintiff (Malaria Consortium) held an insurance policy with the 1st plaintiff (ICEA General Insurance) covering office equipment. The defendant security company was contracted to provide two security guards nightly at the 2nd plaintiff's premises at Plot 25 Upper Naguru East Road, Kampala. On the night of 7 September 2018, only one security guard, Buke Mosia, was deployed contrary to the contract. That night, the office was broken into and laptops, a camera, and cash were stolen. When relief guards arrived the next morning, they discovered the break-in. The defendant's letter acknowledged that their own security guard, who had disappeared, was the most likely suspect. The defendant paid UGX 5,000,000 to the 2nd plaintiff under the contractual liability ceiling. The 2nd plaintiff claimed from the 1st plaintiff, who paid UGX 72,594,723 following an independent loss adjuster's assessment. The 1st plaintiff then sought recovery from the defendant under the doctrine of subrogation. The defendant ignored summons and demand notes and did not file a defence or appear in court.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st plaintiff is entitled to be paid the sum indemnified by it?
  2. Whether the defendant is liable for the loss occasioned to the 2nd plaintiff?
  3. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiffs.
  • Defendant to pay the 1st plaintiff UGX 72,594,723/= being the sum of indemnity paid to the insured inclusive of loss adjuster fees.
  • Interest at court rate awarded from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • General damages of UGX 5,000,000/= awarded to the 1st plaintiff.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Insurance — Subrogation — Right of Insurer to Recover Indemnity Paid
Where an insurer has indemnified its insured for a loss caused by a third party, the doctrine of subrogation entitles the insurer to step into the shoes of the insured and exercise all remedies, rights, and advantages available to the insured against that third party to recover the amount paid.
Vicarious Liability — Liability of Master for Servant's Acts
A master is vicariously liable for the acts of his servant or agent upon proof of: (i) the existence of an employment or agency relationship; (ii) that the employee or agent was acting in the course of employment or doing an act within the class of acts authorised by the employer; and (iii) default by the employee or agent which fixes liability on the employer.
Contract Law — Fundamental Breach — Effect on Limitation of Liability Clauses
Where a party to a contract fundamentally breaches its obligations, a contractual limitation of liability clause may be set aside, and the party in breach may be held liable for the full extent of the loss caused.
Tort Law — General Damages — Compensatory Nature
General damages are awarded to fulfil the common law remedy of restitutio in integrum, restoring the plaintiff as nearly as possible to the position he or she would have been in had the injury complained of not occurred. They are compensatory in nature and include compensation for being kept out of money for an extended period.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Lakungu v Lalobo [2003] 1 E.A. 129
  • Castellain v Preston (1883) 11 QBD
  • Hope Mukankusi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2011)
  • Stroms v Hutchison [1905] UKHL 844
  • Ajaib Transporters Ltd v Verma Co. Limited (HCCS No. 792 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

ICEA General Insurance Company Limited & Another v Ultimate Security (Civil Suit 328 of 2019) [2023] UGCommC 281 (1 March 2023)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.